~ Where cognition comes to die.

Monthly Archives: July 2016

I find that I carry multiple and markedly variable ideologies depending on what religious framework I’m being asked to work within.

Many of you already know that I’m a Christian, if not a bit of an odd one, and that comes with a wealth of societal notions that are sometimes accurate and other times hilariously inadequate or outright false. I won’t get into the minutia of what I believe in this regard.

But I find that things are much simpler in the atheist framework. From thatperspective, I recognize that without my faith I’m a moral nihilist. It’s something I hate quite deeply, but it is also, from what I can gather, the most accurate method of thought given our position without ethereal leadership. I hate it, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

If it truly is only us, down here, evolved via half-truths of perception to aid in survival, then we’ve got no empirical right to tell anyone else what is and isn’t best for them. Right down to the individual.

But we’ll do it anyway because of an unjustifiable fear of death, obscurity, and cosmic bewilderment. We’re just wired to form excuses for our desires and points of view.

In short, as far as I can gather, a universe without a single, imperishable creator bearing a particular perspective on it’s creation, is a universe that humans will never observe or understand fully, because there is no definable limit to the information. No theory of everything that can’t be questioned with absurd, but no less possible, ideas. We’ll never achieve anything more than “good enough,” and that’s the best case we can make.

Functionally adequate is not the same thing as “true.”

More likely in this scenario, the universe is our sandbox and we play until we die. It would seem only our impetus drives us.

—-

Considering this, the grand irony comes in like a typhoon. I believe in God only because I want to. Because I’d rather not live in an atheist’s universe. I have no empirical reasoning for believing, only that it prevents humanity from devolving into the chaos that would result from absolute reason, should we ever fully embrace it.

Some might consider me monstrous, perhaps a bad person for being unable to hold moral standing without a God, but to them I would ask upon what have they established their own morality? And where does their authority on the matter come from? From the self? There are over seven billion selves in humanity, all with different moralities. Who gets to decide among the myriad idiosyncrasies which modular collection is the proper morality?

One of our major problems is that we perpetually believe we live in the time of most progressiveness, of most accuracy, of most truth.

We’ll never achieve that time, because it is a fiction. Too variably defined. Something divine would have to come down and end any question of accuracy, because we can’t, as so varying and eclectic a species, and being the only authority upon which to judge anything, pretend to offer an unquestionable definition of such sought after abstractions.

War comes when we pretend that we can. Because we are all wrong and we are all right and we all pretend this isn’t the case.